May 27 Main results of the day

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance to refuse the government agency’s application to revoke the license and satisfy the counter- claim of the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” to recognize the government agency’s decision to suspend the license as illegal.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the arguments of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” that the government agency did not have the right to seal the communications of the Principal’s production equipment, with the exception of metering devices, and therefore the arguments about the “damage” of the seals on communications, which the government agency blamed on the Principal, were found by the courts not to be based on the law.

The government agency was also not helped by “manipulations” with judicial practice with its participation, a retrospective analysis of previously existing legislation and references to other violations imputed to the Principal as an additional basis for revocation of the license.

Thus, the Principal has the right to continue the licensed activity.

It is noteworthy that the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to convince the court of the correct interpretation of the norms of substantive law in the absence of any judicial practice in similar cases or explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Rashid Gitinov, Head of the dispute resolution practice with government agencies.

The Moscow Arbitration Court resolved the dispute in favor of the Principal regarding a dispute arising from a work contract.

A contract was concluded between the Principal and the Opponent. The Opponent performed all the work in accordance with the contract, and the Principal paid for it in full. However, the Opponent considered that he had also completed additional work under this contract and, considering that this work had not been paid for, filed a lawsuit to collect the debt.

However, Katana Ruslan, lawyer from the economic disputes practice, managed to convince the court of first instance that the evidence presented did not imply the approval of additional work, as well as the fact that this work was performed. All the evidence presented by the opponent did not relate to the work for which he claims. There were many inconsistencies and inconsequence in the evidence presented by the opponent.

As a result, the Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the claims.